Remove this Banner Ad

"Animal Farm" Iraqi Style

  • Thread starter Thread starter Former
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Former

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 16, 2001
Posts
8,062
Reaction score
22
Location
Brisbane
"reports of arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, impunity, poor prison conditions - particularly in pretrial detention facilities - and arbitrary arrest and detention."

No, not in Cuba. Though that was the first thing that leaped to my mind.



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/politics/01rights.html?th

U.S. Cites Array of Rights Abuses by the Iraqi Government in 2004
By BRIAN KNOWLTON
International Herald Tribune

Published: March 1, 2005

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 - The State Department on Monday detailed an array of human rights abuses last year by the Iraqi government, including torture, rape and illegal detentions by police officers and functionaries of the interim administration that took power in June.

In the Bush administration's bluntest description of human rights transgressions by the American-supported government, the report said the Iraqis "generally respected human rights, but serious problems remained" as the government and American-led foreign forces fought a violent insurgency. It cited "reports of arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, impunity, poor prison conditions - particularly in pretrial detention facilities - and arbitrary arrest and detention."

The lengthy discussion came in a chapter on Iraq in the department's annual report on human rights, which pointedly criticized not only countries that had been found chronically deficient, like North Korea, Syria and Iran, but also some close American allies, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

The allegations of abuses by an Iraqi government installed by the United States and still heavily influenced by it provided an unusual element to the larger report. The report did not address incidents in Iraq in which Americans were involved, like the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, which came to light in 2004.

A senior State Department official said the criticism of Iraq was in keeping with the administration's approach. "What it shows is that we don't look the other way," the official said. "There are countries we support and that are friends, and when they have practices that don't meet international standards, we don't hesitate to call a spade a spade."

The official said Iraqi officials accepted that there had been problems and were correcting their practices. "The Iraqis are not in denial on this," the official added.

The report emphasized the larger accomplishments of the Iraqi people, as symbolized by the successful elections of Jan. 30. But it gave extensive details about complaints that the government had violated human rights provisions of the transitional law put in place by the United States and the Iraqi Governing Council shortly after the 2003 invasion.

These included reports that police officers in Basra were involved in killing 10 Baath Party members; that the police in Baghdad arrested, interrogated and killed 12 kidnappers of three police officers on Oct. 16, 2004, and that corruption was a problem at every level of government.

The document cited without comment a report by Human Rights Watch, an independent advocacy group, that "torture and ill treatment of detainees by police was commonplace," allegedly including "beatings with cables and hosepipes, electric shocks to their earlobes and genitals, food and water deprivation."

In one case, the report said, enough evidence had been gathered "to prosecute police officers in Baghdad who were systematically raping and torturing female detainees." Two of them received prison sentences, while four were demoted and reassigned.

Prison conditions in Iraq had shown "significant improvement" after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the department said, but many prisons still fell short of international standards.

There were also reports of police officers making false arrests to extort money from the families of detainees, and of an Iraqi ministry having members of a political party arrested in order to occupy their offices. "Reportedly," the document said, "coerced confessions and interrogation continued to be the favored method of investigation by police."

The broader annual report, which is required by Congress and is formally titled the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, described rights abuses in other allied countries in notably tough language.

The report said that the Saudi record of abuses in 2004 "far exceeds the advances," that Egypt's and Pakistan's records were poor, and that Jordan had "many problems." It criticized all four countries over allegations of abusing and torturing prisoners.

But the document also struck optimistic notes at times. It cited the success of democratic elections in Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine, and suggested that developments in those places, coming as President Bush continued to promote democracy as a counter to terrorism, might be helping to embolden people elsewhere to shed a hopelessness about change.

In much of the broader Middle East, "people are increasingly conscious of the freedom deficit in the region," Under Secretary Paula J. Dobriansky said in introducing the report.

The official attention paid to Egypt and Saudi Arabia is not new, but some of the language in the report was unexpectedly sharp. In Saudi Arabia, for example, it said: "There were credible reports of torture and abuse of prisoners by security forces, arbitrary arrests and incommunicado detentions. The religious police continued to intimidate, abuse and detain citizens and foreigners. Most trials were closed."

Egypt, it said, restricted many basic rights, and its security forces continued to mistreat prisoners, leading to at least 10 deaths in custody.

The report on Iraq also covered the year in which the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib were uncovered.

An acting assistant secretary of state, Michael G. Kozak, was asked Monday how that scandal had affected the administration's latest evaluation. "Look," he said, "the events at Abu Ghraib were a stain on the honor of the U.S.; there's no two ways about it."

What mattered, he said, was whether a government worked to redress the abuses that do occur. "I think you've seen the U.S. being very active," he said.

The report, coming days after some critics suggested that President Bush had been insufficiently tough with President Vladimir V. Putin, listed several complaints about Russia. It criticized the central government's consolidation of power at the expense of the regions, its restriction of news media, and its allowing of political pressure to taint the judiciary.

It said China, which has a growing commercial relationship with the United States, continued to abuse prisoners, harass activists and restrict religious practices.

North Korea was condemned for continued "brutal and repressive" treatment of its people; Iran for allowing citizen's freedom to "deteriorate;" and Syria for widespread use of torture, poor prison conditions and mass arrests of Kurds.

Sudan's human rights record was called extremely poor, both for restricting freedoms and for the continuing violence by government-linked militias in Darfur Province.
 
Not sure anyone has who read Animal Farm would apply it to this situation, but the point that strikes me is that the information is comming from Bush's Department of State.

Revealing honesty about what problems exist. An honesty only democracies can or will exhibit. Already a major step away from Saddam's Animal regime.
 
JW Frogen said:
Not sure anyone has who read Animal Farm would apply it to this situation, but the point that strikes me is that the information is comming from Bush's Department of State.
Yes. Not from the Iraqi government.

JW Frogen said:
Revealing honesty about what problems exist. An honesty only democracies can or will exhibit. Already a major step away from Saddam's Animal regime.
Again, it takes someone else to point it out. Just as it took someone else to point out that the US military are doing their fair share of the torture and abuse.

The reason I posted this is to highlight the ridiculous assumption that is thrown about in some media that somehow as soon as you "free" Iraq and hold elections it all magically works out with a happy movie ending.

This sort of thing will go on for decades. Will the Aussie army have troops on the ground for decades? To what end? So Johnny can go to more of Bush's BBQs? So we can be screwed over by US drug companies in shonky free-trade deals? Wouldn't the money be better spent on more cost-effective humanitarian aid?

Stock up on Glen 20. The stink from this war will be here for our great-grandkids to savour.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Actually in the case of Abu Graib, there was an internal US military investigation looking into it, and a US military person who broke it. It was not discovered from an outside source.

The US is the major occupational authority in Iraq, and the government at present is still the interum authority until the elected government chooses the Prime Minister. It is not suprising that an interrum authority in the middle of a vicious insurrection does not spend it's time critising itself. That the US is only reveals the honesty of US goals to democratise and see the country recognise human rights.

Neither of which would have been possible without this war.
 
Lets see with selective editing and not one word added or changed, let me see what I can do.


Groves [url said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/politics/01rights.html?th[/url]

U.S. Cites Array of Rights Abuses by the Iraqi Government
By BRIAN KNOWLTON
International Herald Tribune



WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 - The State Department on Monday detailed an array of human rights abuses last year by the Iraqi government, including torture, rape and illegal detentions by police officers and functionaries of the administration that took power in June.

In the Bush administration's bluntest description of human rights transgressions the report said the Iraqis "generally respected human rights, but serious problems remained" . It cited "reports of arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, impunity, poor prison conditions - particularly in pretrial detention facilities - and arbitrary arrest and detention."

The lengthy discussion came in a chapter on Iraq in the department's annual report on human rights, which pointedly criticized not only countries that had been found chronically deficient, like North Korea, Syria and Iran, but also some close American allies, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

The allegations of abuses by an Iraqi government provided an unusual element to the larger report.

A senior State Department official said the criticism of Iraq was in keeping with the administration's approach. "What it shows is that we don't look the other way," the official said. "There are countries we support and that are friends, and when they have practices that don't meet international standards, we don't hesitate to call a spade a spade."

The official said Iraqi officials accepted that there had been problems and were correcting their practices. "The Iraqis are not in denial on this," the official added.

The report emphasized the larger accomplishments of the Iraqi people, as symbolized by the successful elections of Jan. 30. But it gave extensive details about complaints that the government had violated human rights provisions of the law put in place by Iraqi Governing Council

These included reports that police officers in Basra were involved in killing 10 Baath Party members; that the police in Baghdad arrested, interrogated and killed 12 kidnappers of three police officers on Oct. 16, 2004, and that corruption was a problem at every level of government.

The document cited without comment a report by Human Rights Watch, an independent advocacy group, that "torture and ill treatment of detainees by police was commonplace," allegedly including "beatings with cables and hosepipes, electric shocks to their earlobes and genitals, food and water deprivation."

In one case, the report said, enough evidence had been gathered "to prosecute police officers in Baghdad who were systematically raping and torturing female detainees." Two of them received prison sentences, while four were demoted and reassigned.

Prison conditions in Iraq had shown "significant improvement" the department said, but many prisons still fell short of international standards.

There were also reports of police officers making false arrests to extort money from the families of detainees, and of an Iraqi ministry having members of a political party arrested in order to occupy their offices. "Reportedly," the document said, "coerced confessions and interrogation continued to be the favored method of investigation by police."

The broader annual report, which is required by Congress and is formally titled the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, described rights abuses in other allied countries in notably tough language.

The report said that the Saudi record of abuses in 2004 "far exceeds the advances," that Egypt's and Pakistan's records were poor, and that Jordan had "many problems." It criticized all four countries over allegations of abusing and torturing prisoners.

But the document also struck optimistic notes at times. It cited the success of democratic elections in Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine, and suggested that developments in those places, coming as President Bush continued to promote democracy as a counter to terrorism, might be helping to embolden people elsewhere to shed a hopelessness about change.

In much of the broader Middle East, "people are increasingly conscious of the freedom deficit in the region," Under Secretary Paula J. Dobriansky said in introducing the report.

The official attention paid to Egypt and Saudi Arabia is not new, but some of the language in the report was unexpectedly sharp. In Saudi Arabia, for example, it said: "There were credible reports of torture and abuse of prisoners by security forces, arbitrary arrests and incommunicado detentions. The religious police continued to intimidate, abuse and detain citizens and foreigners. Most trials were closed."

Egypt, it said, restricted many basic rights, and its security forces continued to mistreat prisoners, leading to at least 10 deaths in custody.



An acting assistant secretary of state, Michael G. Kozak, was asked Monday how that scandal had affected the administration's latest evaluation
What mattered, he said, was whether a government worked to redress the abuses that do occur. "I think you've seen the U.S. being very active," he said.

The report, coming days after some critics suggested that President Bush had been insufficiently tough with President Vladimir V. Putin, listed several complaints about Russia. It criticized the central government's consolidation of power at the expense of the regions, its restriction of news media, and its allowing of political pressure to taint the judiciary.

It said China, which has a growing commercial relationship with the United States, continued to abuse prisoners, harass activists and restrict religious practices.

North Korea was condemned for continued "brutal and repressive" treatment of its people; Iran for allowing citizen's freedom to "deteriorate;" and Syria for widespread use of torture, poor prison conditions and mass arrests of Kurds.

Sudan's human rights record was called extremely poor, both for restricting freedoms and for the continuing violence by government-linked militias in Darfur Province.

So tell me Jane et al what the hell has changed in 3 years?Isnt that why America the Free went in and removed Saddam? Reading that you could forgive a person for being transported back 3 years and reading the spin put on by the Bush Govt to remove Saddam.

FFS democracy at its best
 
JW Frogen said:
Actually in the case of Abu Graib, there was an internal US military investigation looking into it, and a US military person who broke it. It was not discovered from an outside source.

Pretty sure the story was 'broken' by the New Yorker via red Cross reports. The US military had sweet FA to do with it.
 
London Dave said:
Pretty sure the story was 'broken' by the New Yorker via red Cross reports. The US military had sweet FA to do with it.

Wrong. There were complaints about what was going on internally in the US military, and an internal investigation was being conducted.

One of the soldiers not knowing this leaked what he knew to the press.
 
PerthCrow said:
Lets see with selective editing and not one word added or changed, let me see what I can do.




So tell me Jane et al what the hell has changed in 3 years?Isnt that why America the Free went in and removed Saddam? Reading that you could forgive a person for being transported back 3 years and reading the spin put on by the Bush Govt to remove Saddam.

FFS democracy at its best

Insurgency as horrible as it is, and retalition of those imprisoned as horrible as it is, is not totalitarian dictatorship.

The difference is there have been elections which will produce a government of consent. So if they fail in future to be humane which is an open question long term, it will be a failure of Iraqi culture and not just one man.

This is a fundemental difference.
 
Groves said:
The reason I posted this is to highlight the ridiculous assumption that is thrown about in some media that somehow as soon as you "free" Iraq and hold elections it all magically works out with a happy movie ending.

This sort of thing will go on for decades. Will the Aussie army have troops on the ground for decades? To what end? So Johnny can go to more of Bush's BBQs? So we can be screwed over by US drug companies in shonky free-trade deals? Wouldn't the money be better spent on more cost-effective humanitarian aid?

Stock up on Glen 20. The stink from this war will be here for our great-grandkids to savour.

You're hilarious Groves.

Who on earth is saying that everything will magically work out with happy movie ending?

Dude, I know it's hard for you to accept that 8.5 million purple fingers has shoved your own prejudices down your throat so fast you barely had the chance to say "liberation", but maybe you should stop building straw men for a moment and appreciate that Aghanis and Iraqis have simply proved you wrong.

The stink is being caused by white middle class Westerners who don't have the grace to admit that a seismic shift in middle-eastern politics is taking place and nothing you pseudo-left reactionaries can do to stop it.
 
Hawkforce said:
You're hilarious Groves.

Who on earth is saying that everything will magically work out with happy movie ending?

Dude, I know it's hard for you to accept that 8.5 million purple fingers has shoved your own prejudices down your throat so fast you barely had the chance to say "liberation", but maybe you should stop building straw men for a moment and appreciate that Aghanis and Iraqis have simply proved you wrong.

The stink is being caused by white middle class Westerners who don't have the grace to admit that a seismic shift in middle-eastern politics is taking place and nothing you pseudo-left reactionaries can do to stop it.
dreaming pseud II, it amazes me how you ratbag right delusional fools think just because they've had a vote in Iraq and Afganistan everything is hunky dory, wake up and smell the coffee
 
demon_dave said:
dreaming pseud II, it amazes me how you ratbag right delusional fools think just because they've had a vote in Iraq and Afganistan everything is hunky dory, wake up and smell the coffee

The very thought of you associating yourself with the Left makes me ill.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

JW Frogen said:
Wrong. There were complaints about what was going on internally in the US military, and an internal investigation was being conducted.

One of the soldiers not knowing this leaked what he knew to the press.

Oh, so we would have read about it all in the next issue of Stars and Stripes then? Silly me.
 
Well at least you know you are being silly.

In the middle of a war the US military is not going to publisise a fact that adds fuel to the propaganda machine of the insurgency, as Abu Graib did.

You see the point of a war is not a PC feel good debate, it is to win.

But the military is quite cognizant that they are democratically controlled. Such internal investigations are meant to find out if such abuse exists and stop it, and they know eventually the information will be released once there is no longer a strategic concern.

There are some broader and more interesting questions not being asked by the press, but being discussed by historians of warefare such as Victor Davis Hanson about how democratic militaries fight wars, and how the unprecidented press access the military now allows affects their ability to actually achieve strategic objectives in the age of global and almost instanious media.
 
JW Frogen said:
You see the point of a war is not a PC feel good debate, it is to win.

.
Define WIN? Is it toppling a statue? Is it feeling the need to ''correct'' the rebellious people within Abu Ghraib? Is it watching bombs go off daily?

Reading that report you must be honest and say you are replacing what you destroyed. If you take the high and mighty road of WMD you lose the argument. If you take the humanitarian road that you are replacing a dictaor then you lose that argument as well.

All the hawks here have their heads so far up their @rses they dont see the dishonesty created.
 
JW Frogen said:
In the middle of a war the US military is not going to publisise a fact that adds fuel to the propaganda machine of the insurgency, as Abu Graib did.

So it was the guy who leaked the story who broke it, not the person who actually wrote the article that appeared in the New Yorker? Does this mean Deeep Throat was deprived of his Pulitzer Prize by the evil Woodward and Bernstein? By your logic, it seems so. Shame on the fourth estate.

The US Military control the media presence there. It's called 'embedding'. If they learnt one thing from Vietnam, that was it.
 
PerthCrow said:
Define WIN? Is it toppling a statue? Is it feeling the need to ''correct'' the rebellious people within Abu Ghraib? Is it watching bombs go off daily?

Reading that report you must be honest and say you are replacing what you destroyed. If you take the high and mighty road of WMD you lose the argument. If you take the humanitarian road that you are replacing a dictaor then you lose that argument as well.

All the hawks here have their heads so far up their @rses they dont see the dishonesty created.

No where will you find me saying the US "has" won in Iraq yet, I said the point of this war, all war "is" to win.

As a dyslexic myself, I can forgive your sin. ;)

As to replacing what we destroyed, I almost did not respond it is so moronic, but what the hell the linguinni on the stove is not ready yet.

No serious observer of Iraq would claim the government emerging is a totalitarian dictatorship.

The Kurds could tell you all about the difference as they have both relative peace in most of their territory, growing economic prosperity and complete democracy, the latter is in most of the country now.

I can't recall Saddam allowing real elections"

Now wether it can hold, well that is subject to debate. But no thinking person can say what is emerging is the same as what has been replaced.
 
London Dave said:
So it was the guy who leaked the story who broke it, not the person who actually wrote the article that appeared in the New Yorker? Does this mean Deeep Throat was deprived of his Pulitzer Prize by the evil Woodward and Bernstein? By your logic, it seems so. Shame on the fourth estate.

The US Military control the media presence there. It's called 'embedding'. If they learnt one thing from Vietnam, that was it.

The scribe is not the Pharo.

There is no story without the knowlege.

The facts remains that a military person told the story and the journalist monkey wrote it down.

As to embedding, that is still allowing media presence. Both Vietnam and this war has seen more real time reporting than any other wars in History. Plus there are all sorts of independent jornos running about the place. (Some even kidnapped by the insurgents because they are not embedded.) There is more freedom to report this war than any other army allows even now. During WW2 all reports were completely censored by the military.

There is no historian who will claim we don't presenlty have the most open access to reporting war than we ever have. And this presents some serious challanges to democracies.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

JW Frogen said:
The scribe is not the Pharo.

There is no story without the knowlege.

The facts remains that a military person told the story and the journalist monkey wrote it down.

Nice exercise in semantics, governments around the world must be queueing up to obtain your services. The question remains, did the 'source' break the story?

No. T'was the New Yorker reporter/s, i.e. The New yorker magazine. Breaking the story involves getting it published (widely) first. Not whispering sweet nothings in a reporters ear.

DD, not sure what froggo was drinking tonite but i hope they have it on tap down at the Adam & Eve!
 
London Dave said:
Nice exercise in semantics, governments around the world must be queueing up to obtain your services. The question remains, did the 'source' break the story?

No. T'was the New Yorker reporter/s, i.e. The New yorker magazine. Breaking the story involves getting it published (widely) first. Not whispering sweet nothings in a reporters ear.

DD, not sure what froggo was drinking tonite but i hope they have it on tap down at the Adam & Eve!

So your obsessed with the word break. That is your entire argument.

I bet you like minimalist furnature as well? The whole IKEA thing?

I don't paticularly find that interesting when the original claim was the US military had nothing to do with the revelation of the story.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by London Dave
"Pretty sure the story was 'broken' by the New Yorker via red Cross reports. The US military had sweet FA to do with it."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The military guy broke the story. Without his honesty there is no story. I think that is "FA". Are you really so dense that you think the soldier did not know revealing the story is going to make the story break?

What was the soldier supposed to start up his own newspaper and break the story that way? Perhaps he could have went to Rupert Murdoch and said "Rup, I can't tell you what I know, but if you will fund a cable newstation in my control, I can break this story."

If I am drinking I can only say you should take the advise of Abraham Lincoln about General Grant and "Tell me what brand of whiskey Frogen drinks I would like to send a barral of it to London Dave and Dipper wit."

Yours Sincerely,

Brigader General JW Frogen. (Cue music to Ashokan Farewell.)
 
Like I said, who 'broke' the story. If this military guy 'broke' the story, what is his name?


My taste in furniture, or what you find interesting has SFA to do with it. Again, an exercise in waffle.

The military guy told a reporter. The reporter 'broke' the story, not the military guy. If the 'military guy' broke the story, he'd have the credit for it. The soldier didn't have to start up his own newspaper and break the story, he was a source. Without the source passing information to the person/organisation who breaks the story, there is no story. Otherwise, it's just a 2 player game of Chinese whispers. No one else knows. The reporter and his media outlet broke the story.

Now bugger off for a while whilst I organise the delivery of my conran furniture!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom